Stephanie testifies today

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
davestoller said:
But riddle me this--
lets say it DID happen.
Why do the Andreus care?
riddle the clinic this..... are you familiar with the whole background to this case or are you jumping in and out as you please in what appears as fanboy trolling?
 
Jul 25, 2009
1,072
0
0
Tubeless said:
.... It does not make legal sense for her to not fully cooperate - but the stakes must be higher that we realize.
Yes. Perhaps the hospital conversation and the SCA trial isn't all she knows about or all she was asked about. Her lawyers comment that she was mostly questioned about things that happened between 14 and 5 years ago is a little ambiguous. Things that happened 14 or 5 years ago, or things that happened in the intervening decade or so?
 
Jul 29, 2010
70
0
0
davestoller said:
At this point I think it is fair to say that the two of them could have misheard anything.
As others have pointed out, how could the Andreus have misheard anything if your position is that it didn't happen?

davestoller said:
Remember a few basic things--how likely is it that a physician would go into a room and take a history with a room full of guests/visitors? 0% likely.
Extremely extremely unlikely.
100% likely. Physician's do take histories in front of patient's family and friends all the time. And many times without even asking for the patient's permission. The residents and interns in teaching hospitals are chronically harried and sleep deprived and often in a hurry to complete a history so they can move on to the next hospital admission waiting for them.

davestoller said:
And that if I recall from testiminy, it was on a weekend, because they were talking about the COwboys game, which means that the attendings the boss doctors would have only been making rounds, not going in and taking a complete history.
Again, not true. Physicians have to admit patients to the hospital on Saturday and Sunday just like any other day of the week, 365 days out of the year. Every admission requires a complete history and physical. Usually a resident and an intern will conduct their own history and physical at a separate time from the attending physician.

davestoller said:
And why oh why would anyone have been asking a question like this in 1996? DO you dope and what dopoing products have you used? WHat MD back then would have the knowledge or suspician of anything like this going on? Unlikely. And because of the private nature of the question, like asking a guy if he had sex outside the marriage with his wife present...
In 1996 the use of performance-enhancing drugs was not only well-known to the medical community but to the general public at large. It has pervaded many sports at many levels, from high school athletes to olympic and professional athletes. True, a physician might think twice about asking a sensitive historical question in front of family and friends, but a sleep-deprived resident or intern might not share the same concern or have the same clinical maturity.

davestoller said:
But forget unlikely...

Several other people said it didnt happen.
Like who? You mean...
Lance Armstrong,
Lance's lawyer, Tim Herman,
Lance's PR guy, Mark Fabiani, the "master of disaster"...

davestoller said:
But riddle me this--
lets say it DID happen.
Why do the Andreus care?
Do you seriously see this as a riddle? They were under oath to tell the truth. Betsy and Frankie Andreu care about not being smeared as jealous liars by Lance and his henchmen.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
"I can't recall. I tend not to pay attention to conversations that aren't any of my business. Sorry I can't be of more help to your investigation."
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
stephens said:
"I can't recall. I tend not to pay attention to conversations that aren't any of my business. Sorry I can't be of more help to your investigation."
Ya - pity for Stephanie using that line will go against what she said to:

What she said to James Startt:
In his testimony, Startt said "I asked her did it definitely happen. And she said, yes it did."
LeMond on tape:
"I was in that room. I heard it. I definitely won't lie. My whole concern is my loyalties to Oakley."
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
I wasn't really thinking of Stephanie. I was thinking it should have been the Andreu's line all along. The idea that they had to get involved in someone else's business just because someone, even the government, is asking is crazy to me. There is always a way to stay out of it.

At the end of the day, this whole line of "evidence" is evidence of nothing more than what someone heard someone else say. I mean, when someone like a jury member is going to be weighing the scales, they'll have on one side decades of passed drug tests and on the other side of the scale you have "Someone said they heard Armstrong say he used PEDs a long time ago, and someone else says they heard someone else tell them that they heard Armstrong say he used PEDs years before the time period we are actually talking about in this case."

I mean, sure, this stuff can help set the stage, but it's all prior to the time period the Feds are supposedly investigating! I doubt anyone gives a **** what Lance did prior to having cancer or being sponsored by customers of the u.s. postal service.

Like I've said before, I really think that proof of a failed test (and not the cortisone) that was covered up by a bribe is going to be about the only thing that is going to bring down Armstrong. Otherwise, the "if i was doping, how would i have passed all those tests," is going to be pretty powerful for the jury, and pretty embarrassing for the organizations (who would have to say "we didn't/don't know what we are doing as far as testing goes," in order to explain how a guy passed all those tests). I mean, the closing argument is going to be, "we don't have to rely on what so and so thinks they heard or thinks they saw or what might have been inside packages...we have actual science here, actual tests, dozens and dozens over the years. all negative. listen to the science."

So there better be a real positive that was covered up, that has a B-sample confirmation, or all of this is going to be a waste of our tax dollars with no conviction.
 
May 25, 2009
332
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ya - pity for Stephanie using that line will go against what she said to:

What she said to James Startt:


LeMond on tape:
Dr,

Can you provide more details about or post a link about Stephanie telling James Startt about the conversation as I have never heard this (He was a TDF Photographer right?) Never heard this but I assume this was one of the many people she told about the conversation?

Nik
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
stephens said:
I wasn't really thinking of Stephanie. I was thinking it should have been the Andreu's line all along. The idea that they had to get involved in someone else's business just because someone, even the government, is asking is crazy to me. There is always a way to stay out of it.

At the end of the day, this whole line of "evidence" is evidence of nothing more than what someone heard someone else say. I mean, when someone like a jury member is going to be weighing the scales, they'll have on one side decades of passed drug tests and on the other side of the scale you have "Someone said they heard Armstrong say he used PEDs a long time ago, and someone else says they heard someone else tell them that they heard Armstrong say he used PEDs years before the time period we are actually talking about in this case."

I mean, sure, this stuff can help set the stage, but it's all prior to the time period the Feds are supposedly investigating! I doubt anyone gives a **** what Lance did prior to having cancer or being sponsored by customers of the u.s. postal service.

Like I've said before, I really think that proof of a failed test (and not the cortisone) that was covered up by a bribe is going to be about the only thing that is going to bring down Armstrong. Otherwise, the "if i was doping, how would i have passed all those tests," is going to be pretty powerful for the jury, and pretty embarrassing for the organizations (who would have to say "we didn't/don't know what we are doing as far as testing goes," in order to explain how a guy passed all those tests). I mean, the closing argument is going to be, "we don't have to rely on what so and so thinks they heard or thinks they saw or what might have been inside packages...we have actual science here, actual tests, dozens and dozens over the years. all negative. listen to the science."

So there better be a real positive that was covered up, that has a B-sample confirmation, or all of this is going to be a waste of our tax dollars with no conviction.
Illegal distribution of PEDs, business fraud, obstruction of justice, tax evasion, perjury, witness tampering - all potential charges out of the investigation that can stick without failing a single doping test.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
stephens said:
I wasn't really thinking of Stephanie. I was thinking it should have been the Andreu's line all along. The idea that they had to get involved in someone else's business just because someone, even the government, is asking is crazy to me. There is always a way to stay out of it.

At the end of the day, this whole line of "evidence" is evidence of nothing more than what someone heard someone else say. I mean, when someone like a jury member is going to be weighing the scales, they'll have on one side decades of passed drug tests and on the other side of the scale you have "Someone said they heard Armstrong say he used PEDs a long time ago, and someone else says they heard someone else tell them that they heard Armstrong say he used PEDs years before the time period we are actually talking about in this case."

I mean, sure, this stuff can help set the stage, but it's all prior to the time period the Feds are supposedly investigating! I doubt anyone gives a **** what Lance did prior to having cancer or being sponsored by customers of the u.s. postal service.

Like I've said before, I really think that proof of a failed test (and not the cortisone) that was covered up by a bribe is going to be about the only thing that is going to bring down Armstrong. Otherwise, the "if i was doping, how would i have passed all those tests," is going to be pretty powerful for the jury, and pretty embarrassing for the organizations (who would have to say "we didn't/don't know what we are doing as far as testing goes," in order to explain how a guy passed all those tests). I mean, the closing argument is going to be, "we don't have to rely on what so and so thinks they heard or thinks they saw or what might have been inside packages...we have actual science here, actual tests, dozens and dozens over the years. all negative. listen to the science."

So there better be a real positive that was covered up, that has a B-sample confirmation, or all of this is going to be a waste of our tax dollars with no conviction.
Well that says it all right there.

You are requested to attend a court hearing and testify truthfully........ and you believe people should not do this??


As for the rest of your post - again you are confusing what information can be gleaned from SMcIlvain as it is still at the investigation stage.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
buckwheat said:
Really?

Why?

I'd bet a lot that the Feds are asking very few questions they don't already know the answers to.

Unless of course, it's a fishing expedition.
Uhh, no, it doesn't quite work like that. In the legal world there is nothing KNOWN. You have what you PRESUME to be true, and you present or try to discover and then present validation for that. The mental attitude is different - and the picture painted by
buckwheat said:
asking very few questions they don't already know the answers to.
is, hmmm, inaccurate? They don't KNOW, they have evidence, or testimony, and they want more of same to validate what they have. They might say "I KNOW" - but they don't, they assume, and they act on those presumations/ assumptions/ beliefs.

Sorry to be a little picky, but I think the difference is important.
 
May 11, 2009
117
0
0
Has it occurred to people here that the FDA is really targeting the illegal manufacture, and distribution (to only one person)of unapproved pharmaceuticals?

I presume the FDA already has information, and the testimony, from people involved in the procurement of the custom manufactured material.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
compete_clean said:
Has it occurred to people here that the FDA is really targeting the illegal manufacture, and distribution (to only one person)of unapproved pharmaceuticals?

I presume the FDA already has information, and the testimony, from people involved in the procurement of the custom manufactured material.
Yes. Armstrong has bragged to teammates about such a substance in the past. I would assume the Feds would follow that path.
 

buckwheat

BANNED
Sep 24, 2009
1,852
0
0
hiero2 said:
Uhh, no, it doesn't quite work like that. In the legal world there is nothing KNOWN. You have what you PRESUME to be true, and you present or try to discover and then present validation for that. The mental attitude is different - and the picture painted by

is, hmmm, inaccurate? They don't KNOW, they have evidence, or testimony, and they want more of same to validate what they have. They might say "I KNOW" - but they don't, they assume, and they act on those presumations/ assumptions/ beliefs.

Sorry to be a little picky, but I think the difference is important.
What's the importance? I hope you don't say the presumption of innocence. If you believe one is presumed innocent by the State after an arrest or after an investigation such as this begins, you're kidding yourself.

I think it's a fairly meaningless distinction. You don't believe the prosecutors know what the truth is regarding much of what McIlvaine was testifying about prior to her testimony?

Of course the prosecutors want to get the stories of witnesses locked in, and in the case of McIlvain, I'm pretty sure her testimony will lead to a perjury charge if it does not line up with what the prosecutors are sure of.

I'll go so far to say that the authorities are fairly certain Armstrong is guilty of criminal activity.
 
May 23, 2010
526
0
0
oldschoolnik said:
Thanks for posting this. I don't know if I ever saw this whole NPR article. really excellent. Tom Goldman was, as others have said repeatedly, way ahead of the rest of the US media on this.

Wonder if Startt has been called? I'm not clear on the admissibility of these conversations. Are they hearsay or what?
It would seem logical that the investigators have already contacted Mr Startt. There are likely many such contacts, part of the official investigation, that don't require grand jury testimony - and we don't know about. Stephanie was subpoenaed only after she refused to speak to the investigators voluntarily.

Since Startt provided a deposition in the SCA case, and has no reason to suddenly lose his memory, he's likely going to repeat his story under oath. The feds can use Startt's testimony and the Lemond tape, plus Betsy & Frankie to build a case against Stephanie for obstruction of justice if they so choose - assuming she said she can't recall a thing about the 1996 hospital room conversation.
 
May 9, 2009
583
0
0
"If that's what he reported me to have said, that's interesting. Unfortunately it's been so long I can't recall if I actually told him that or was misquoted or lied to him or who knows. I guess what it comes down to is, if you want my official sworn testimony on this supposed hospital conversation, all I can say is that right now I can't recall anything about such a conversation or whether it took place or not. Sorry I can't be of more help to you."

There is no possibility the statement above could lead to a perjury conviction. It worked for Ollie North and the rest of the Reagan administration, didn't it?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
stephens said:
"If that's what he reported me to have said, that's interesting. Unfortunately it's been so long I can't recall if I actually told him that or was misquoted or lied to him or who knows. I guess what it comes down to is, if you want my official sworn testimony on this supposed hospital conversation, all I can say is that right now I can't recall anything about such a conversation or whether it took place or not. Sorry I can't be of more help to you."

There is no possibility the statement above could lead to a perjury conviction. It worked for Ollie North and the rest of the Reagan administration, didn't it?
Was Ollie North one of the Doctors??
 

Polish

BANNED
Mar 11, 2009
3,853
0
0
I vaquely remember a work meeting I was at in 1996, 15years ago. VLSI Technology - custom integrated circuit maker. I seem to recall it was an important meeting. At least at the time it seemed important.

Today, in my minds eye, I can not remember the faces of half the attendees. Cannot remember the names of all of the other half lol. Geez, trying to recall what was said back then is impossible now. C'mon, we are talking about 1996.
 
Polish said:
I vaquely remember a work meeting I was at in 1996, 15years ago. VLSI Technology - custom integrated circuit maker. I seem to recall it was an important meeting. At least at the time it seemed important.

Today, in my minds eye, I can not remember the faces of half the attendees. Cannot remember the names of all of the other half lol. Geez, trying to recall what was said back then is impossible now. C'mon, we are talking about 1996.
But if you were in a room with Lancey-poo and he picked his nose I bet you would remember that clearly 50 years from now.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
compete_clean said:
Has it occurred to people here that the FDA is really targeting the illegal manufacture, and distribution (to only one person)of unapproved pharmaceuticals?

I presume the FDA already has information, and the testimony, from people involved in the procurement of the custom manufactured material.
The FDA and USADA, ATF, DEA, Justice Dept and a whole lot of people want to know when someone is manufacturing a drug for potential distribution! You don't have to sell it just be proven to have intent to sell or distribute. If it's new, unproven and coming from foreign shores they are paid to pay attention. The more organized it is the more they'll pay attention.

That a large US corporation would do it is pretty monumental.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
frenchfry said:
But if you were in a room with Lancey-poo and he picked his nose I bet you would remember that clearly 50 years from now.
I bet polish would have put his hand out to get what lancey-poo was picking;)
 
Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Polish said:
I vaquely remember a work meeting I was at in 1996, 15years ago. VLSI Technology - custom integrated circuit maker. I seem to recall it was an important meeting. At least at the time it seemed important.

Today, in my minds eye, I can not remember the faces of half the attendees. Cannot remember the names of all of the other half lol. Geez, trying to recall what was said back then is impossible now. C'mon, we are talking about 1996.
First, being in a hospital room with a friend who has cancer is memorable, especially when you hear him admit that he's used a variety of performance enhancing drugs.
I imagine that every time from then on that you hear him say he's clean, you think back to that day. The same goes for when he wins his first Tour de France - it would be natural to remember that day and wonder if this athlete who represents your company is clean, especially when he has a positive test after the very first stage.

Then there are all the times that she had conversations about it since - testifying under oath during a lawsuit, in conversation with LeMond, leaving voice mails of apology to Betsy, etc.

This is like Lance when that photo came up of him bullying Contador during the Tour this year. Lance said he hadn't spoken to him in a year, then said they had chatted when the picture was taken but couldn't remember what was said. VeloNews called him on it, and said that if they had just had a chat with an arch rival they hadn't seen in a year, they would darn well remember the conversation. Bruyneel chimed in by saying that Contador and Armstrong talk together in the peloton all the time, and would again (this was after Alberto delivered watches to the RS bus). These are people you defend, day in and day out. Did Lance tell the truth when he said he hadn't spoken to Contador, or did Bruyneel tell the truth when he said the two riders talk all the time? Or did they both lie, again? Like when Lance said there was zero truth to the TT wheel story, Bruyneel agreed with him in the English speaking press, then later told Marca that Contador did buy the wheel (and he made up an unbelievable story to try to cover their butts).

Stephanie seems to have the same kind of selective memory failure as other members of Armstrong's network.

These people, including McIlvain, are going down. They're going down hard. There will be public humiliation, and loss of assets, and jail time. They're going to be exposed for cheating, crimes, bribes, etc. Hell, they already have, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. And yet you devote your time to defending them to people who don't believe a word you say. And if Lance met you in real life, he wouldn't even say hello, or thank you, because that's the kind of guy he is. He'd probably make fun of it behind your back, if he became aware of you existence.

I can give you a hard example. When he first started his comeback, I was unemployed and suffering severe depression. I started reading all the news articles about the return, and left comments to articles that had attacks by LeMond and Bordry. I also decided that since I was spending time researching, I might as well start a blog with links to articles, videos, twitpics, etc.

His twitter following was small then. I sent him a link, and also posted it in comments on the old LA website. I could tell from stats counter how people accessed the blog, and someone came from the twitter link (I kept that account at zero followers). Anyway, he and other people at Livestrong knew about the blog, as did Chris Brewer (followed my BloggingLance on twitter).

Not long after, he did an interview in the UK Guardian. He was asked about forums and article comments. He said that if you look closely at article comments, you can tell that a lot of them are from just one person (I copied and pasted), and that THAT HAD NO VALUE. Then he added this gem:

But go online and, to this day, Betsy blogs 24 hours a day about me. If that ain't sick, what is?
He killed two birds with one stone on that one. He got me by saying that me blogging about him was sick, and since he likes to take bits of unrelated info and combine them in sad and pathetic ways, he took the existence of my blog and decided to use it to attack Betsy, and her testimony from the SCA lawsuit.

So, I was a guy with a blog that was a hundred percent positive about his racing and training, sharing positive articles and hard to find videos with people who would have not had time to find them on their own. I also made some pretty logical defenses against attacks against him in articles. Then I found out that he thought the comments were useless, and that a person must be sick to put that much effort into a blog about him.

Trust me, if he knew what you and flicker do here, he'd have zero respect for it, and he'd make fun of you behind your back. He wouldn't like you, or appreciate you. He would accept your money.

I deleted my blog after that article. A week or two later,I noticed that it was cached in Google, so I recreated it, because I wasn't doing it for him, I was doing it because I like to write, needed a project to work on, and wanted to help out other fans. I stopped after he showed his true colors during Santa Rosa training camp and ATOC. I blocked him om twitter during the Giro. I was proud a few months back when I Googled his account to follow up on something mentioned here, and found out that he'd blocked me back, even though I never used @LanceArmstrong in my tweets.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS